Scientists' Panel Urges Big Boost In Child-Care Aid

Washington--Warning that inadequate child care could have "immediate
and long-term implications for the health and well-being of children,"
a panel convened by one of the country's most respected scientific
groups last week presented its case for a significantly larger public
investment in such services.

In a 347-page report released here, the 19-member, interdisciplinary
panel named by the National Research Council concludes that child care
is unavailable, unaffordable, or fails to meet "basic standards of
quality" for large numbers of U.S. children.

Among other recommendations, it calls for spending increases that
could more than double the amount of public aid going to help subsidize
child care for low-income families and bolster family-day-care systems,
caregiver training, referral programs, and other support services.

The report, Who Cares for America's Children: Child Care Policy for
the 1990's, also seeks an expansion of Head Start and other programs
for at-risk preschoolers; the establishment of national standards to
improve child-care quality; and legislation mandating that employers
offer parents of newborn or adopted infants up to one year of unpaid
leave.

The urgency of these issues is underscored by the panel's prediction
that, by the turn of the century, nearly 80 percent of school-age
children and 70 percent of preschoolers will have mothers who work
outside the home. Currently, about 60 percent of all children under age
13 have mothers in the workforce.

The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of
Sciences and Engineering, formed the Panel on Child Care Policy in 1987
to review and assess existing data on the costs and effects of
child-care policies and programs.

The group included experts in pediatrics, public policy, business,
labor, education, child development, child care, economics, and other
social sciences.

Although the report's synthesis of data offers no new information,
observers said it could add an important dimension to the child-care
debate, given the panel's stature and expertise across a wide range of
fields.

"I hope it will have influence because of the type of group that
formulated the recommendations," said Barbara A. Willer, a spokesman
for the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

The two-year study, which cost $856,000, was funded by the
Department of Health and Human Services, the Ford Foundation, and the
Foundation for Child Development.

Silent on Pending Bills

While the recommendations go beyond the provisions of the child-care
bills now being considered by the Congress, some child-care advocates
voiced disappointment that the panel did not endorse a specific
legislative proposal or funding approach.

The panel urged federal, state, and local governments to increase
their annual child-care expenditures--now estimated at $8 billion--by
$5 billion to $10 billion.

"Their call for new funding is very welcome," said Ms. Willer of the
naeyc "But we would have liked to see the report go further" by
evaluating various plans being eyed by the Congress.

The panel, for example, did not weigh in on the long-running debate
on Capitol Hill over whether to finance some types of child-care
services under an existing block-grant program, or through a new
program of direct grants to providers. (See story on page 18.)

Its neutrality on such issues was disappointing, Ms. Willer said,
"given the fact that the panel was convened during two years of intense
debate" over child-care legislation.

The panel is sending "mixed messages," added Helen Blank, a senior
program associate with the Children's Defense Fund.

"They are ahead of Congress by recognizing problems in the quality
and infrastructure" of child-care services, she said. But "not being
specific on funding sources leaves poor families in between," she
argued.

Role of Quality Stressed

Panel members said they could not endorse a particular funding
approach on the basis of scientific data. But they argued that their
findings on the importance of maintaining a "regulable" level of
child-care quality carry significant policy implications.

Although the report cites "lingering disputes" over the effects of
full-time child care in an infant's first year of life, it concludes
that such care is "not inevitably or pervasively harmful." It is the
quality of care that largely determines its success, the panel
suggested.

"There is no evidence that good-quality child care is any worse than
good-quality family care," said Barbara Bowman, a panel member who is
director of the Erikson Institute in Chicago. The group's major
accomplishment, she said, was to "carve out a body of agreement that
says there is good scientific support for at least this much"
improvement in child care.

At a news conference here last week, the chairman of the panel, John
L. Palmer, dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
at Syracuse University, cited strong evidence of a link between "the
quality of care a child receives early in life and healthy development"
of cognitive skills and social relationships.

While high-quality out-of-home care can offset some of the
detrimental effects of a stressful, impoverished home, the panel
argued, "poor-quality care, more than any single type of program or
arrangement, threatens children's development."

The panel said many children are in settings that do not protect
health and safety or offer "appropriate developmental stimulation"--and
that those who could gain most from high-quality programs often receive
the poorest care.

Arguing that child-care policies should give priority to the
disadvantaged, the group noted that low-income families receive less
than 30 percent of federal child-care aid, down from 80 percent in
1972.

"Child-care costs are a crushing burden for many low-income
families," said Andrew Cherlin, a panelist who is a professor of
sociology at Johns Hopkins University.

'Investment in Productivity'

Besides advocating more federal and state child-care aid for poor
families, the group urged the federal government to set "reasonable
ranges," based on current research, for standards on staff-child
ratios, group size, caregiver training, and facility design.

Although some states now allow one person to care for as many as 12
infants, the panel said staff-child ratios should not exceed the
following maximums: one to four for children under age 2; one to six
for 2-year-olds; and 1 to 10 for 3- to 5-year-olds.

Caregivers should be trained in child development theory and
practice, the group said, adding that data show that "more years of
general education contribute to caregiver performance and children's
developmental outcomes."

The panel noted that child-care standards vary widely among states,
that 60 percent of private homes providing day care are unlicensed, and
that low staff wages and high turnover threaten the "stable
relationships" that data show support healthy child development.

Addressing such issues will "not be cheap," warned the chairman, Mr.
Palmer, but should be seen "as an investment in the health and
development of children, the well-being of American families, and the
future productivity" of the workforce.

While citing a need to coordinate existing services, the panel said
the diversity of the current child-care8market, with its network of
centers and day-care homes, should be maintained. A role should be
ensured for various levels of government, volunteer organizations,
employers, communities, families, and individuals, the report says, and
policies should "affirm the role and responsibilities of families in
childrearing."

No Consensus on Risks

Based on a review of research on the effects of child care, the
panel concluded that "there is no strong basis in our review for urging
parents toward or away from enrolling children in child-care settings."
But it emphasized that variations in the quality of services can
adversely affect children's development.

One of the panelists, Jack P. Shonkoff, professor of pediatrics at
the University of Massachusetts Medical School, cited, for example, an
increased risk of emotional, social, and learning problems for children
who receive poor care in their early years.

The report notes that while older children enrolled in child care
show "no marked differences" in their patterns of maternal attachment
than those reared at home, researchers disagree about the effect of
full-time care on infants in the first year of life.

Researchers generally agree that a higher proportion of infants who
are enrolled in programs for more than 20 hours a week in their first
year display distinctive behaviors, Dr. Shonkoff said.

"But there is no consensus on what the behavior shows," he
emphasized, noting that child-care critics interpret it as insecurity
while advocates say it reflects a "greater independence and
maturity."

The report states that data on early-intervention efforts for
at-risk preschoolers generally show that their intellectual gains are
temporary rather than long-term. But such programs can improve
"school-related behavior," it adds, and cognitive gains can be
sustained in programs that continue into and complement elementary
schooling.

In contrast to past and current research focusing on the effects of
child care versus parental care and comparing the developmental effects
of various environments, the report predicts, an emerging wave of
research will "view the home and child-care environments as linked and
mutually influential."

The panel also called for further study on the effects of child-care
regulation, the benefits of investments in caregiver training, the
growth of public-school programs for 3- and 4-year-olds, and the role
of employer-sponsored child-care initiatives.

Copies of the report will be available beginning May 1. They can be
ordered for $24.95 each from the National Academy Press, 2101
Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.